The morning of the Paris massacre, this surfaced on the Internet:
“Stephen Harper’s willingness to be tough with terrorists and dictators – in effect, punching above Canada’s foreign policy weight class – is something to be admired, whether you agree with him or not. But will it pay electoral dividends? Can Harper actually win an election against the surging Trudeau Liberals with foreign policy?
Not a chance.”
“Not a chance.” The author of that pithy observation was me. I wrote it in July, and – as the world this week contemplates the enormous implications of the atrocity in Paris – I am increasingly of the view that I was mistaken.
The events of recent months – the assassinations of two members of our Armed Forces by self-styled Muslim avengers, most notably – have me (and likely others) reassessing positions. In dangerous times like these, people make important political choices. In Canada, the choice is presently between, on the one hand, two Opposition leaders who seemingly oppose confronting and defeating terror in every possible circumstance – and, on the other hand, a Prime Minister who believes humanitarian aid alone is insufficient.
Some might argue that characterization is too simplistic. Perhaps. But as I argue in my book Fight The Right, the political brain is an emotional organ, not a rational one. On voting day, passion generally defeats reason. Values, as simplistic as they may seem to progressives, rule.
Values – that is, hopes, dreams, fears, the ineffable stuff of life – are deeply-held, deeply-emotional notions. Mountains of data make clear that conservatives are very good at values-based debates, and progressives usually are not.
Conservatives have achieved supremacy in the European Union, Canada and the United States – jurisdictions where the majority of voters identify themselves as progressive – by expertly dominating the values debate, whether the subject-matter is class resentments or fighting terror. Progressives, meanwhile, too often become tongue-tied when talking about values. They’re not good at it.
As a result, voters (even progressive ones) drift towards conservative politicians and parties – because they equate a progressives’ (a) reluctance to talk about values with (b) having no values at all.
Foreign affairs, however nuanced diplomats consider it to be, is mainly an unending debate about values. Who is right, and who is wrong; who is wearing a black hat, and who is wearing a white one.
There are exceptions, some might say. And, to be sure, the 1988 Free Trade election showcased some thoughtful debates about policy. But when we distil that rather important Canadian campaign down to its base elements, it’s evident that 1988 was simply a values debate about Canadian sovereignty: keeping it, or losing it. And, as historians will note, the Conservatives won that one pretty convincingly, too.
Presently, Conservatives are winning the values debate in Canada because of foreign affairs. The Tories’ position is clear and comprehensible to the electorate. The shifting positions of the Liberals/New Democrats are not. Juvenile jokes about our military, and our military capacity, haven’t helped.
Timing is critical, of course. Our current preoccupation with foreign affairs may well fade by the Spring. But as a very senior Liberal said to me the morning of the Paris slaughter: “These attacks are happening all the time, now. And they’re happening in the West, not just in Afghanistan.”
That, mainly, is why the Conservative Party is competitive again. Canadians understand that the world has become a much more dangerous place, and they don’t consider handing out box lunches to the many victims of ISIS/ISIL – and nothing else – to be thoughtful foreign policy. They consider it to be mistaken.
I was mistaken, too, it seems. Improbably, foreign affairs has become top-of-mind for voters in this election year. And, because debates about foreign affairs are really just debates about values in disguise, the Conservative Party is getting undeniably closer to what was once considered completely impossible:
So, when I go to Raptors games, I’m confronted with the same thing over and over: the advertising of the Diamond and Diamond “law firm” everywhere I look. I won’t call them ambulance chasers, because that would be mean. But, in recent months, I’ve sometimes been moved to comment on how their public relations efforts bestow such dignity on the profession of law.
Around the same time, and out of wide blue yonder, head Global TV bingo caller Leslie Roberts went after me, big time, on Twitter. He tweeted about how a client needed to “fire @kinsellawarren’s firm”! I found it a bit weird that he would do that. A columnist, sure. But a news anchor? Weird.
Anyway, I blocked the moron and forgot all about it. Until tonight.
Tonight, the Star published a Kevin Donovan special revealing how Leslie Roberts had secretly been an owner of PR firm whose clients he regularly featured on Global TV – without ever disclosing they were clients.
And guess who one of those clients was? Take it away, Mr. Donovan:
“What Roberts said he has never revealed, to viewers or to Global, is that he is “creative director” and part owner of BuzzPR, which provided Diamond and Diamond lawyers with media training and helped them get featured on Global news.”
Anyway, I’m sure it’s all a great big coincidence, and that Leslie Roberts – as he figures out the complexities of the EI system – will have a compelling explanation for this and many other coincidences.
It is very nice that you are helping out Mr. Vickers. He is a real hero.
However, the person who should really be ambassador to Ireland is me. I may cause a few international incidents, but I am pretty sure none of them would result in an actual war.
In any event, since Justin Trudeau’s guys don’t want me around, perhaps you do. PMO switchboard has my number. God bless.
I’ve written books about the notion that, when it comes to speech, reasonable limits should indeed exist. Calling for genocide against a group of people, for example. Holocaust denial in the classroom. Child pornography. Here’s what I wrote about the issue of cartoons and religion almost exactly eight years ago to the day on this web site:
“I believe there are reasonable and proper limits on human expression. I believe that words and images have power. Words and images have the power to wound and hurt and, sometimes, persuade people to kill.
I believe that we are entitled, as a society, to sanction (civilly or criminally) those who use words and images to deliberately or recklessly inflict harm on others – as with laws relating to the propagation of hate, or laws prohibiting child pornography, or defamation codes, or laws designed to sanction pornography that promotes violence against women and children.
And, yes: I believe we are entitled as society to place reasonable limits on the expression of actual hatred towards religious faiths. I believe that words and images that expose the tenets of a person’s faith to hatred should be condemned and, where appropriate, punished. Expressing hatred about someone else’s spiritual beliefs is not free speech. It is hatred, and it is almost always calculated to cause pain and hurt.
Which brings us, two years later, to the global debate that raged about cartoons depicting the prophet Mohamed as a terrorist – and Ezra Levant’s decision to publish them, repeatedly. The cartoons set off a wave of emotional protests and threats on a global scale – and fostered a vigorous debate about what constitutes free speech. That debate has been reignited by Ezra’s appearance before the Alberta human rights body a few days ago. (And I sense he is genuine about his libertarian view, by the way.)
After [the 2000 federal election campaign, in which I did this], conservative writer Claire Hoy had written something about me, so I invited him to lunch. He showed up, and we had a great lunch and a great debate about censorship. Hoy told me he objected to hate laws.
So I asked Claire this: “Don’t you think there is a difference between a young guy painting a happy face on his school wall – and a skinhead who paints a swastika, and the words ‘DEATH TO THE JEWS’ on the front of a synagogue? Isn’t there a qualitative difference between one action, and the other? Hate laws are designed to address that difference, aren’t they?”
There is indeed a difference between an act of mischief, and an expression of hatred. And that’s my point, here. Certain words and images can cause actual fear and pain and hate.
In early 2006, at a band practice, we were talking about another Toronto punk group, called – and I’m not making this up – Tit Fuck Me Jesus.
I’m a church-going Catholic, and that band’s name doesn’t offend me in the slightest. Nor the stuff found on the covers of Black Flag records, nor the songs by my beloved Bad Religion.
But that’s just me. And I can certainly see how someone else could be offended – really and truly hurt – by something like a band called Tit Fuck Me Jesus. And, just because I’m okay with that, doesn’t mean that someone else has to be.
That’s pretty much where I end up on the cartoons that depict Islam’s prophet as a murderer. You might not find such things hateful or even hurtful, but many others do. Deeply, truly, honestly.
And, when all is said and done, what Muslims seek from the rest of us is not anything we do not already seek from them. Which is, mainly, a modicum of respect for the things they hold closest to their hearts.
I say they deserve that respect.”
Sorry for the length of that excerpt, but I wanted to make a point, which is: I don’t think you can’t readily label me a knee-jerk anything-goes libertarian. Nope.
But this morning, I just about drove my truck off the road as I listened to CBC Radio’s Metro Morning. On it, the publisher of the Toronto Star, John Cruickshank, talked about how it was “wrong” – he used that word repeatedly – to publish even a link to the cartoons for which the staff at Charlie Hebdo actually died. I couldn’t take notes because I was driving, but Cruickshank – whilst whinging and sermonizing, without irony, about “free speech” – also said the Star wouldn’t publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons because they lack “context.”
I could go on ad nauseum about the nausea that induced in me, here, but let me be brief, because I have to get to work: Cruickshank sounds like a nice guy, but he’s full of shit. Here’s why.
God gave us the powers of judgment. In Her infinite wisdom, She gave us the ability to look, and listen, and consider. She bestowed upon us the ability to recognize that there is, indeed, a qualitative difference between publishing a cartoon poking fun at a religious leader, and publishing a propaganda poster calling for all Muslims to be exterminated.
That distinction is apparently lost on Cruickshank and some other journalists this morning. If you look at what Charlie Hebdo was doing, you would see they weren’t in any way agitating for genocide, or knowingly propagating hatred.
Over the years, they were publishing cartoons that poked fun at several religions and religious figures. During the time that they did so, Islam became the world’s fastest-growing religion, at a rate of 2.2 per cent every year. While Charlie Hebdo was publishing satirical cartoons, to put a fine point on it, the sky – filled, as it is, with deities – did not fall.
Decide for yourself. I’m no free speech lunatic, and I did just that. Below, here are the Charlie Hebdo cartoons the Toronto Star – which invokes “free speech” for every single idiotic thing that they do, day in and day out – refuses to publish. My hunch is that some of you will look at them, some of you will laugh, some of you won’t, and all of you will go about your day (as I am about to), undeterred.
And if, well, one or two want to kill me for publishing them, send me a note, and we’ll arrange for a time and place to get together, to save us both some time.
Both reactions somewhat emotional, as I say. One is to state that (I think) I was wrong.
In the Summer, I wrote this:
“On the much-read National Newswatch Thursday morning, then, a column on Harper and foreign policy was the top headlined item. In it, the Public Policy Forum’s Dr. Don Lenihan wrote that Harper’s approach to foreign policy “just might pay off at the ballot box.”
Writes Lenihan, who is influential in Ottawa: “Harper has positioned himself as a champion of democracy and is using his place on the world stage to stand up to tyrants and terrorists.”
Politically, “[Harper’s foreign policy moves are] starting to look like a very smart. By contrast with Vladimir Putin or Hamas, Harper can’t help but look good. Standing up to them looks even better. While he’s been criticized for being too one-sided, and even of shooting from the lip, lots of people agree with his hard line.”
Indeed they do. This assistant to a former Liberal prime minister is one of them. Harper’s willingness to be tough with the likes of Putin and Hamas – in effect, punching above Canada’s foreign policy weight class – is something to be admired, whether you agree with him or not.
But will it pay electoral dividends? Can Harper actually win an election against the surging Trudeau Liberals with foreign policy?
Not a chance.”
The events of recent months – the assassinations of members of our Armed Forces, most notably – have me reassessing my position. In dangerous times like these, people make important choices. In Canada, the choice is presently between, on the one hand, two Opposition leaders who seemingly oppose confronting and defeating terror in every possible circumstance – and, on the other hand, a Prime Minister who apparently believes handing out box lunches to the victims of ISIS is insufficient.
That’s my first response to the atrocity in Paris: we live in dangerous times, people know it, and they will vote accordingly.
My second response to what happened – and which I encourage everyone else to do, too – is to post here the cartoon of ISIS leader al-Baghdadi that Charlie Hebdo tweeted just prior to the murders of their staff. I guess my message is this: burn in Hell, you monsters. You can’t kill all of us.
Dear Irritating People: I find this "the new normal" neologism extremely irritating. Stop using it. Sincerely, etc.
— Warren Kinsella (@kinsellawarren) January 6, 2015
Assorted Now employees and friends of its owner swarmed this wee web site yesterday, taking umbrage with what I had to say about the magazine’s boss (Hollett has no pony tail!) and approach (we think it’s okay to run ads trafficking in girls!).
So, as expected, various other correspondents provided useful tidbits about the situational ethics of Now and its svengali – among them, the fun photo above with Now‘s boss, chumming with Rob Ford in the US, where fewer folks were around to point out how decidedly less-chummy he was with Mayor On Crack when back home. Here they are, with linkage. There’s more to come.
- Now’s boss apparently worked as unregistered lobbyist at City Hall.
- Now makes stuff up, and gets stuff wrong, to attack folks for doing the very thing its owner does (viz., photo above).
- Folks like the Torontoist, no corporate lackeys, call Now “petty,” “self righteous,” a paper that believes it is “morally superior” to everyone else.
- They claim to be feminist in their orientation, but they make lots of money running “display ads which pigeonhole all women into one category and degrade them,” says MediaWatch.
- Their pro-union claims notwithstanding, Now‘s owners “have consciously been making editorial cutbacks, and the news section has suffered the most,” “Now‘s news department has only two full-time staff members and a couple of interns,” their “credibility is strained,” and the result is journalism that is “sloppy” and a “paper has gone from being a left-wing hippie rag to a slick corporate money-making machine…more concerned with real estate, reviews, and running its restaurant.”
That stuff isn’t from me: it’s what others have said. Unregistered lobbying? Chumming with the far Right? Corporate hypocrisy? Making a fortune out of ads which degrade women? Cutting news staff to fund non-news corporate ventures?
All that sounds pretty corporate, to me, but what do I know? I don’t make the kind of dough Michael Hollett does.
And, what’s more, there’s no photos of me around, hugging Rob Ford.